-->
@RationalMadman
only if it is impossible to directly screw in a lightbulb for oneself without a 3d body.
How many gods does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Posts
Total:
114
-->
@secularmerlin
Define directly and define screw.
-->
@RationalMadman
In this context personally means by oneself without the use of an intermediary or tool if any kind and screw means to manipulate such that the bulb is seated in the socket properly to receive the flow of electricity and therefore light up.
-->
@secularmerlin
In that case even a human can't screw a lightbulb.
-->
@RationalMadman
No? A human cannot reach out with its hand and screw in a lightbulb?
-->
@secularmerlin
The hand would be the intermediary tool.
-->
@RationalMadman
The hand of the human is not part of the human?
-->
@secularmerlin
That doesn't make it less of an intermediary tool to the identity of the person which is in their brain or their soul. God uses reality in the same level of directness vs indirectness a human uses their hands.
-->
@RationalMadman
And how have you determined that?
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay, I'm done trying. You're not acting you're actually that irritatingly stubborn.
Some day I hope you open your mind
-->
@RationalMadman
I haven't always been an atheist. My skepticism is the result of examining my beliefs and finding that they were not based on reasonable evidence.
-->
@secularmerlin
Discount is perhaps a strong term. Better to say I see no reason to believe in such a being.
Do you think it's possible (likely?) that a being could exist that powers are so much more vast than yours that it could seem "god-like"?
considering the size of the galaxy, you don't see that as a possibility?
-->
@ravensjt
"Seem godlike" is a little vague. My cellphone and my car might make me seem godlike to someone from the 1800s. Also I have no idea how to asighn a probability on how likely it is that any extraterrestrial intelligence even exists.
-->
@secularmerlin
--> @CastinThe lightbulb is just a placeholder for any discernable physical effect whatever. Many things have observable physical effects that are not for my benefit.So far as I can tell I have never observed any god(s) doing anything. Certainly nothing that I could not think of another perfectly reasonable explanation for.How do we identify the difference between those things which exist and those which do not if not by the physical effect it has on our universe?Honestly even then our universe could simply be an illussion.
Obviously, I haven't observed any such phenomenon either. If there is a God, it does not seem to be one who is interested in directly affecting the small slice of the universe my eyes have touched. Most theists I talk to seem to think he acts indirectly. In the Bible at least, God seems to act directly many times. If one is interpreting the acts literally, that is.
I can assure you he isn't a high IQ satirist.You keep making debates that are either intentionally wrong to prod at people and provoke them or are the result of shallow thinking, I'm still unsure which. I like to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you're a high IQ satirist playing a low IQ atheist.
God does not need light to see. Why would He need a light bulb?
You say you've never seen God do anything. But what have you seen? And is that the standard? What you've seen? Everything done before you were born invalid? Anything done beyond your presence invalid?
If you witnessed God screwing in a light bulb, how would you know it was God?
Instead of a light bulb, God made the sun.
-->
@secularmerlin
"Seem godlike" is a little vague. My cellphone and my car might make me seem godlike to someone from the 1800s. Also I have no idea how to asighn a probability on how likely it is that any extraterrestrial intelligence even exists.
The underlined is my point exactly (we don't have knowledge of everything to make a firm stance).
And although it may seem futile to assign a percentage to the likely hood of a "God-like" being in the Universe (or any "Universe") when considering how vast (endless) the Universe is, the chances seem high enough to me to make the stance of Atheism faulty (imo)
-->
@ravensjt
I think you mean it is untenable to make a positive claim about the existence or nonexistence of "god like" beings of any kind although I would be more apt to believe in physical beings with advanced technology (since I have observed both physical beings and technology) than any supernatural or spiritual being (since I have never 9bserved a spirit or anything supernatural.
-->
@ethang5
If you witnessed God screwing in a light bulb, how would you know it was God?
I'm not sure but that would be my first question if you claimed to have seen it.
God made the sun.
And how have you determined that
-->
@ravensjt
And although it may seem futile to assign a percentage to the likely hood of a "God-like" being in the Universe (or any "Universe") when considering how vast (endless) the Universe is, the chances seem high enough to me to make the stance of Atheism faulty (imo)
How is this not an argument from ignorance?
-->
@SkepticalOne
How is this not an argument from ignorance?
How is this not an argument from arrogance?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Since when is a sincere question an argument?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
How is admitting that we don't know arrogant?
-->
@SkepticalOne
Since when is a sincere question an argument?
Calling someone ignorant not an argument.
Calling someone arrogant an argument.
Like I said.
-->
@secularmerlin
How is admitting that we don't know arrogant?
No what was said.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
He asked how it was not an argument from ignorance, that is arguing that since we don't know something we can assume a particular stance rather than saying "we don't know".
-->
@secularmerlin
If you don't know then neither statement is ignorant. Why is your statement I am right correct and their statement you could be wrong ignorance? We all know why. Atheists are always right no matter what.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Raven, as I understand him, appeals to ignorance of the universe as an argument for god and against atheism. I've asked how this is not a fallacy. I've not called him ignorant, and if I had, it would be true, as I'm sure he would acknowledge since he admits the ignorance we all have.
This is hardly arrogance. Arrogance is (among other things) admitting no ignorance - which is not done with sincere questions.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Raven is an atheist so you know nothing.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
...and, thus, my question.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Stating someone is ignorant is not a question.